What is the basis for Sola Scriptura?

[gtsecc]

No traditions that don't conflict with scripture!? Don't even get me started on Anglicans (I was baptised as an infant and confirmed in the Episcopal Church btw). Your own church specifically has thumbed its very nose at the teaching of Paul the apostle by allowing the ordination of gay priests and a bishop. Of course the Anglicans don't accept scripture as final authority - they have proven that they have little regard for it by doing so (I am speaking specifically of the church's leadership - and I know not all agree with what is happening). Your church has blatantly taken away from scripture - so don't try to tell me that it doesn't conflict with scripture - that is a joke!

1. Anglicans specifically accept scripture as final authority. All Priests must take an oath to that before they are ordained.

2. Ordination of openly gay Bishops is certainly against tradition and traditional understanding of scripture. The Anglican Communion has made this view clear.

3. This is getting off topic.

 

[gtsecc]

One thing that you have to consider with the origonal 66 books of the canon of scripture - is that all books were written by accepted authorities within the faith.

In other words - regardless of what you think about how those 66 books were "chosen" to be canon you cannot say (if you claim Christ that is) that the authors were in error.

It is not disputed that the "original" canon contained more than 66 books.

There are other writings written by accepted authorities within the faith, that no sect of Christianity has ever considered canon, yet never disputed either. What you have stated would imply the Clement’s writings are or should be included in the Bible since they are undisputed writings by authorities in the Church, and I am pretty sure that is not what you are saying.



You have to argue a few things, I believe:

1. The authors were not in error.

2. The undivided Church, correctly choose which writings to include in the Canon of scripture.



Then, if you only want 66 books, you have to show that Jesus and the disciples used Greek texts of the Old Testament, which did NOT include "apocryphal" books.

AND

You have to use Church authority to re-canonize scripture, using it again to whittle the canon down to 66 books. but, once you have the Bible, does all authority have to come from it? SO, you have to use the larger canon to whittle itself down ot a smaller canon. Not impossible, but pretty convoluted. Is there another way?

 

[Bulldog]

There are other writings written by accepted authorities within the faith, that no sect of Christianity has ever considered canon, yet never disputed either. What you have stated would imply the Clement’s writings are or should be included in the Bible since they are undisputed writings by authorities in the Church, and I am pretty sure that is not what you are saying.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but are you asserting that the epistles of Clement of Rome where declared canonical?

2. The undivided Church, correctly choose which writings to include in the Canon of scripture.

The issue really goes to the Old Testament, since those who disagree about the number of books in the canon rarely disagree about the New Testament books. All the Acropypha would be in the Old Testament if it was scripture.

When it comes to the Old Testament, the Jews had the oracles of God first and where held accountable to the scriptures by Christ. They then, would logically be the deciders of the Old Testament canon, not the church. It is also important to note that the church was not unanimous on the status of the Acroypha....

Then, if you only want 66 books, you have to show that Jesus and the disciples used Greek texts of the Old Testament, which did NOT include "apocryphal" books.

It's illogical to make one prove a negative.

 

[Qoheleth]

If I may.

The Reformed churches practice Infant Baptism-correct?

What Sola Scriptura passages point to this as a correct and commanded practice?

 

[JM]

If I may.

The Reformed churches practice Infant Baptism-correct?

What Sola Scriptura passages point to this as a correct and commanded practice?

Scripture doesn't and thats why you have reformed baptists to boot!

 

[JM]

gt,

You are Anglican, do you believe in the 39 Articles?

 

[gtsecc]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but are you asserting that the epistles of Clement of Rome where declared canonical?

No.
I am saying that being written by accepted church authority is not enough to make something part of the canon, for example Clement.

 

[gtsecc]

It's illogical to make one prove a negative.

Fine.
The point is Christ was known to have used Greek Old Testament text, so it would suggest they must have used the Septuigent. This leaves some problems getting to a 66 book canon. I think one way would be to show that they used Greek Scripture which did not include deutero canon material. Myself, I think they probably did use the Septuagint, and therefore accepted deutero canon material.

 

[gtsecc]

If I may.

The Reformed churches practice Infant Baptism-correct?

What Sola Scriptura passages point to this as a correct and commanded practice?

I think this can be done.
We know whole households were baptized and circumsized, but I am not sure what passage. This leads me to think they much have circumsized adults (ouch) and baptized infants.

 

[gtsecc]

gt,

You are Anglican, do you believe in the 39 Articles?

They are historical documents of my church.

 

[gtsecc]

gt,

You are Anglican, do you believe in the 39 Articles?

They are historical documents of my church and are included in the Prayer Book.

 

[JM]

This is the one most have trouble with:

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.
[/font]

 

[gtsecc]

This is getting way off topic. Some accept Article XVII, and others do not. You can find the most extreme Calvinists and Catholics under Anglicanism. As the body of Christ, we cannot simple excommunicate a part that offends us. like wise, we should be mindful of the whole body, and very very careful when making unilateral decision because it not only effects that one part, but also the Whole Body.



If you want to know more about Anglicanism, ask in STR.

 

[AndOne]

1. Anglicans specifically accept scripture as final authority. All Priests must take an oath to that before they are ordained.

2. Ordination of openly gay Bishops is certainly against tradition and traditional understanding of scripture. The Anglican Communion has made this view clear.

3. This is getting off topic.

It really wasn't off topic - I wasn't trying to debate the right or wrong of ordaning a gay priest - but I was showing how Anglican tradition is indeed not in line with the clear cut teachings of scripture.